Applicant S258 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] FCA 283

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S258 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 283

APPLICANT S258 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 2633 OF 2005

WILCOX J

9 MARCH 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2633 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S258 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MARCH 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $300.00.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2633 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S258 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	9 MARCH 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Moore J, given on 29 November 2005, dismissing an application for an order nisi.  There is a question as to whether the application was made within time, but I prefer to pass over this aspect of the case.  I prefer to look at the substance of the matter.  Moore J refused the order nisi, first, because he could not discern any jurisdictional error in the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) and, second, because that decision had been made as long ago as 16 February 2000.   The Tribunal had made the decision without the benefit of having the applicant appear at an oral hearing.  This was because the applicant had declined the Tribunal's invitation to attend an oral hearing. 

2. Moore J could not discern any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. Nor can I identify any such error.  Accordingly, the proceeding would be futile and the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs.  The costs are to be fixed at $300.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:            22 March 2006

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ms D Watson of Australian Government Solicitor
The Second Respondent filed a submitting Appearance.
Date of Hearing:	9 March 2006
Date of Judgment:	9 March 2006